Technical analysis :useless junk science

TA useless:

 

First you buy a book on TA 101

Then a book on Advanced TA

Then a book on why pros don't look at TA

Then a book on why not to listen to people who say listen to them

Then another book on why everything is rigged, big scam

Then one more book on why this one book will be the only book to tell you the truth

Then a book on real studies by morons, so not real studies

 

Do so because they can't cut it in the business world.

 

That is a good question from someone whose posts are clueless about probabilities.Let me shove this up , once and for all...the knobs with 2 pip stops and 6 pip stops are clueless about probabilities.

Trading probabilities is about keeping your stops far away , so they don't get hit with the wind ,the nearer the stops ,the more likely you will be taken out of good profitable trades much earlier.The ones who ride these trends and make profit keep their stops far away .

The idea is to keep your stops far away , so they don't get hit and to run your profits by not letting trailing stops take you out.

Charts often confuse traders into betting on the past , not the future.Traders are betting serious money on failure of technical analysis and failing t/a junk science, hence 95% of traders lose.

Using T/A is like a driver looking at historical maps to see the future direction , and past indicators of where the market turned in the past , but is not going to repeat the same pattern in the future.

 

When you get my point of view , you will become a real trader .

 

While this is all well and good, as in mostly true, you didn't address the question about probability.

 

Marketsurfer's bold gold proclamation

 

I don't get the guy, he talks like he has all the answers and anyone who disagrees with him is completly wrong but his trades or predictions say otherwise. He seems nice enough though.

From surf http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/stocks/commentary/editorial/consecutive-up-down-closes.cfm

Doesn't that describe a bull flag, consecutive down days in an uptrend, buy the trendline break or first up day with a stop below the low basic TA. Looks like the study confirmed TA in this instance.

 

I thinks he's a delusional narcissistic attention whore. But then of course I could be wrong, I only have his posting history to rely on.

 

You committed two mistakes here.

1) Stop-loss amount has absolutely nothing to do with successful use of probabilities by it's own. Only in relation to other parameters of the trading system. If 6 ticks stop increases the system's net profit vs. 20 ticks stop, then it definitely makes sense. If not then not. I use 100-200 pips stop on longer-term swing trades, because it makes sense. I use 6-10 and sometimes less on day trades, because it makes sense and optimizes system performance.

Observing stop-loss amount isolated is just as stupid as observing some trading setup isolated and out of context only to conclude it "doesn't work". Trading is not so easy as "pick a setup and make tons of money". "Setup" is actually a combination of many, many micro-nuances which make it profitable and stop-loss amount is just one of them.

2) Betting serious money on "TA failure" is actually trading..... TA. Think about it and you'll understand what I mean.

P. S. No such thing as "stops don't get hit" brother Oily... Stops are there to get hit. Actually you WANT them to get hit, because if you have a stop-loss which never gets hit it means one of two things:

a) You endlessly run your losses.

b) You have a perfect system, which doesn't need a stop-loss and always calls winning trades only.

Speaking of probabilities, which case is more likely in reality with stops, which never get hit?